2) The previous administration loved to cook up fanciful interpretations of intelligence, or intelligence itself.

3) There is no accepted, vetted, or documented link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

4) We went to war with a phony excuse.

So now more evidence comes out to suggest that the real purpose of US torture was to elicit some, any, evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. There is no doubt in my mind that if some random civilian in Afghanistan said that there was 1 single terrorist camp that straddled the Iraqi border even if it didn't exist that we would have heard all about that instead of the 16 little words.

Obviously this guy isn't a big fan. For me, I'm troubled by the idea that Iraq-Al Qaeda was a focus of interrogation rather than breaking down the AQ network. I wouldn't go so far as the character assassination attempted in this blog I posted, but I would just point out that not everybody is remembering things the same way that Wilkerson does:

(from the original article posted)
"Other interrogators reported pressure to produce intelligence "but did not recall pressure to identify links between Iraq and al Qaeda," the Senate report states."

At the least these revelations are more evidence to me that the interrogation program was at best badly mishandled by those in charge, and at worst was guilty of illegal actions that warrant further investigation. It is another check mark on the side of why ending some of these programs was a good idea IMO.

Obviously this guy isn't a big fan. For me, I'm troubled by the idea that Iraq-Al Qaeda was a focus of interrogation rather than breaking down the AQ network. I wouldn't go so far as the character assassination attempted in this blog I posted, but I would just point out that not everybody is remembering things the same way that Wilkerson does:

(from the original article posted)
"Other interrogators reported pressure to produce intelligence "but did not recall pressure to identify links between Iraq and al Qaeda," the Senate report states."

At the least these revelations are more evidence to me that the interrogation program was at best badly mishandled by those in charge, and at worst was guilty of illegal actions that warrant further investigation. It is another check mark on the side of why ending some of these programs was a good idea IMO.

Click to expand...

It's been reported before, from other sources, so the character attacks don't fly (they never really do).

Why, then, the relentless waterboarding of these two men? It turns out that high Bush officials put heavy pressure on Pentagon interrogators to get Mohammed and Zubaydah to reveal a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, in order to justify Bush‚Äôs illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to a newly released report of the Senate Armed Services Committee. That link was never established.
The Senate Intelligence Committee revealed that Condoleezza Rice approved waterboarding on July 17, 2002 ‚Äúsubject to a determination of legality by the OLC.‚ÄĚ She got it two weeks later from Bybee and John Yoo. Rice, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales and George Tenet reassured the CIA in spring 2003 that the abusive methods were legal.
Team Bush claimed - and still claims - that it had to use harsh techniques to protect us from the terrorists. They really sought to create evidence to rationalize an illegal, unnecessary, and tragic war.

Here's more from the guy who wrote the first piece I posted. I find this to be a much more logical piece than his original one that only dismissed Wilkerson because of past remarks. This (maybe unlike the last one) is worth a read:

One other point that I would make is that Al Libi wasn't waterboarded by the USA, if he was it was done by the Egyptians, so I would question if his story has anything to do with our use of waterboarding etc to get info on Iraq - AQ.

Also for all the hand wringing about Powell's presentation and the Al Libi info, that wasn't included in his presentation was it? I may be mistaken on that (apologies if I am), but I don't think it was.

Here's more from the guy who wrote the first piece I posted. I find this to be a much more logical piece than his original one that only dismissed Wilkerson because of past remarks. This (maybe unlike the last one) is worth a read:

One other point that I would make is that Al Libi wasn't waterboarded by the USA, if he was it was done by the Egyptians, so I would question if his story has anything to do with our use of waterboarding etc to get info on Iraq - AQ.

Also for all the hand wringing about Powell's presentation and the Al Libi info, that wasn't included in his presentation was it? I may be mistaken on that (apologies if I am), but I don't think it was.

This dude is a fukcing MORON, no wonder he works for the weekly standard! He can't even confirm things he is claiming in powels speech. I'll give him the fact that he admits that, but DAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMN.....he is commenting, and you treat it like he is a reporter.I stopped counting at the # of times he wrote "I don't know" in his 'rebuttal'

this is kindof the problem in all this thing...the media etc.

this man is bloviating an opinion. he is commenting on REPORTING. His job should be to prove the reporting right or wrong, not commnet on it.

I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to Wilkerson's story (which itself lacks any sourcing) from an obviously biased source. I 100% do not think the blog in the weekly standard that I posted qualifies as any kind of serious journalism, I just thought it was a fairly coherent analysis of why what Wilkerson is implying doesn't necessarily all add up. It does NOT make me believe that these things didn't happen, just points out that some of his claims lack substance. I think in that context it was appropriate to post the blog even if it was from the Weekly Standard.

I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to Wilkerson's story (which itself lacks any sourcing) from an obviously biased source. I 100% do not think the blog in the weekly standard that I posted qualifies as any kind of serious journalism, I just thought it was a fairly coherent analysis of why what Wilkerson is implying doesn't necessarily all add up. It does NOT make me believe that these things didn't happen, just points out that some of his claims lack substance. I think in that context it was appropriate to post the blog even if it was from the Weekly Standard.

This dude is a fukcing MORON, no wonder he works for the weekly standard! He can't even confirm things he is claiming in powels speech. I'll give him the fact that he admits that, but DAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMN.....he is commenting, and you treat it like he is a reporter.I stopped counting at the # of times he wrote "I don't know" in his 'rebuttal'

this is kindof the problem in all this thing...the media etc.

this man is bloviating an opinion. he is commenting on REPORTING. His job should be to prove the reporting right or wrong, not commnet on it.

Stokes, thats OUR job!

Click to expand...

(didn't see this post until after I posted my last one BTW)

Wilkerson isn't a reporter either, and all of his claims are at this point based solely on his recollection. That certainly doesn't rise to the level of reporting either. What we've got is a guy who maybe has a axe to grind against Cheney (due to the spat between he and Powell) making claims without releasing the evidence he has supposedly collected to back his story up. He does it almost 5 years after he left government at a time when Cheney is being mean to his old boss.

I certainly can admit what I posted was not reporting, rather just opinion (which is OK to post too!), but it points to the fact that too often what gets "reported" lacks proper sourcing/vetting to be considered real journalism, yet we take it at face value with no critical assessment of the reporting. This happens both ways of course. Cheney claims whatever he wants about the memos that won't be released and it is reported as news even though there's no reason to believe it (and based on history probably shouldn't be belived). That was all.